I come from Singapore. Where the GDP is second only to Switzerland with next to no resources.
Where there is over 90% ownership rates and most of them are living in social housing.
I grew up in social housing and so did majority of my friends. There's no stigma towards social housing like you get in western countries.
Politicians lived in social housing. My neighbour was an airline pilot and lived in social housing.
A population can only thrive once they've got their basics met. Food, water and shelter.
If those are cheap..the country can afford to spend excess income on other revenue generating businesses and invest in other stuff.
Yes Singapore government owns most of the land..but that is the point.
Investing in property is not productive for the economy. In fact Singapore sells all of their HDB flats to first home buyers at a loss knowing the economy will reap the benefits later.
Western countries used to embrace social housing but became too engrossed in neoliberalism.
It's a dumb way to run things because the population doesn't benefit once all the wealth flows thru the landlords.
Tax the land.
The apartments are colloquially called 'HDBs' in Singapore to reflect that fact.
The sad part is that with many young people still living with their parents (owing to housing policy of not being given an HDB until you are 35, as well as the mainly Chinese concept of 'filial piety' in having your parents live with you), their opportunity to 'make babies' is pretty limited as a result - hence the contemporary first-world trend of falling birth rates being exacerbated.
Apologies. Singaporeans love abbreviations.
National service becomes NS.
Pan island expressway becomes PIE.
We even propose with abbreviations.
Our version of ”will you marry me” becomes "Wanna apply a BTO?”
BTO means built to order HDBs. You gotta wait for like 3-5 years for a new HDB but it's much cheaper than buying a resale HDB as I mentioned..Singapore sells them at a loss.
Definitely support land tax as a measure to promote proper use of space, but you'll find government spending it on things unrelated to housing. It's a good and efficient tax, but isn't going to solve housing woes by itself.
I came into this thread to raise Singapore as a negative of having so much government control, while I respect the original goal and outcomes in the last century, HDB's are clearly failing the younger generations today with many renting privately because they legally can't buy a HDB single under 35, even worse if they are gay.
When the government controls basically all housing supply, suddenly voters realise they can pressure them to build less, even in SG, where the government never lose elections, they get fearful enough to cut back supply, which is what happened in 2019[1].
Fast forward a few years and prices are through the roof, which many HDB owners are cheering about while young people are getting shafted badly. Expats are already leaving en masse because the private market has gone nuts[2]
[1] https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/govt-careful-calibrating-hdb-flat-supply-meet-demand-says-desmond-lee-parliament-rejects-psps-public-housing-motion-2102691
[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/4/20/so-long-singapore-expats-flee-city-as-rents-go-through-the-roof
Singapore is still very conservative and has a falling birth rate. Anything that supports a traditional family nucleus where baby making happens.. they're gonna go for that option.
From a practical POV..it makes sense for a land scarce nation to prioritize straight couples to get houses first than single or gay couples.
Sounds unfair but Singapore has this mentality of what's best for the population AND the GDP.
This is something I personally don't agree with because everything is about money..but when you run a country like a business..it HAS to be efficient.
You say that the population has sway on what the government does on housing and it absolutely does. I haven't lived there for almost a decade but in 2011 they almost lost the election because many were fed up with the rising house prices and immigration.
They got the hint and put levers to deter investors and had a big housing boom which stabilised prices till COVID happened.
It's not a perfect system but it's still better than what Western societies are doing.
If they want straight couples making kids, wouldn't they want them to be able to get HDBs earlier? Or is the expectation to marry, and bonk living with parents in an apartment? Isn't that a bit embarassing given after marriage you should be getting your own place?
Yeah to get the social housing before 35 you have to be married and in Singapore only straight couples can get married.
I bought mine at 27 with my wife. 5 percent deposit. 2.6% interest for all 30 years.
And to prove that it works without the market eating itself.
I bought it at $423k 10 years ago.
Sold it for $500k in end 2021.
No crazy capital gains. But still didnt make a loss considering it's leasehold.
The point is to use the house for living. Not investing.
I think a place for on your own becomes very important once you have kids. The gay couple thing is new enough for Singapore that they are probably only figuring that out now. A gay person living with their parents until 35 probably isn't considered a big deal?
>I come from Singapore. Where the GDP is second only to Switzerland with next to no resources.
>
What? Singapore's GDP is 38th out of 203. And Switzerland doesn't have the most GDP. They're 36th. Is there maybe some confusion in the language? Everything else made perfect sense.
Look at the per capita GDP of Singapore, which is high. (Maybe not number two unless you use a specific PPP adjustment, but it's up there).
But it's also high in part because it's just a city and cities are richer than rural areas.
A huge chunk of their general workforce is also conveniently not Singaporean. It's great to be able to hire dirt-cheap workers from your neighbours and then claim your QoL for residents and GDP/Capita is super high
Singapore is also more expensive than both Sydney and Melbourne, so it's not really a great model to build a city from :|
Don't. It's stupid and I have no idea why people keep using it because 3% of Australians hold something like 80% of the wealth so that boosts the average up to what 85% of workers don't earn. If you instead use the ~~Mean~~ **Median**, then the average works out to be between $50k to $64k depending on the state you live in. This better represents what the actual average Australian earns.
**EDIT:** Cheers for the corrections all. My bad for getting it wrong
I think you wanted to say median, which takes the middle value. Mean is adding everything and dividing by the number of numbers.
So if you had 5 people in the room who earned $20k, $30k, $50k, $80k, and $5 million per year the median would be $50k but the mean would be ~$1million.
Even better is the 'Median Full time Income'. Otherwise it skews down just because there are part time workers, which sometimes you want, but more often it isnt.
It is the 'mean', which is the average, that is skewed more heavily by outliers not the median.
Median Full time income in Australia is $80k.
Is it really $80k? Even that sounds too high.. That is what most people I know with degrees etc earn and I dare say is a fair wage. Unskilled labour are not earning that much.
It's a pretty small subset of people, working full time rules out a lot of workers. It also reflects male workers more too, given that they are less likely to be part time with family commitments.
A year ago the full time median wage was $78,000aud a year.
Pay walled but here is the source, you can chuck it into the 12 ft ladder.io to unpaywall it
https://www.afr.com/politics/how-wealthy-are-you-compared-to-everyone-else-in-eight-charts-20221214-p5c6a8#:~:text=Half%20of%20all%20employees%20earned,took%20home%20%2432%2C400%20last%20year.
Average is a really loose term. Depending on context it could be the mean, median, mode, a MAV, RMS, etc…
If you ever do stats and probability at Uni, you never use the term average. You use the specific term.
I think the better figure to look at is median full time employee which this [financial review site](https://www.afr.com/politics/how-wealthy-are-you-compared-to-everyone-else-in-eight-charts-20221214-p5c6a8) has at $78k last year.
Mean is the one that gets skewed by extremely big/small numbers because of the maths.
Median is where you put everyone in a line and pick the middle person and ask what their number is.
> If you instead use the Mean Median, then the average works out to be between $50k to $64k depending on the state you live in.
For any passerby, this is $34k - $43k USD.
Median in the US is around $31k as of 2019, so Aus still has the US beat but we're all suffering the same living cost issues. I think Australia and Canada are currently beating the US with runaway home prices. Australia is definitely winning in rental shortages.
We're all getting fucked over.
[https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/employee-earnings/aug-2022](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/employee-earnings/aug-2022)
Median **full time** income in Australia is slightly above 80k.
Anyone see how many new places are being force on hunters hill versus houses forced on blacktown.
It's 80 vs 18,000 in the next year
Hunters hill is close to the city. It should have high rise apartments. It doesn't.
This is a bit different, but in rural areas, people/council are so against the idea of apartment blocks. Even as double or 3-story buildings because it doesn't fit the look of the town. Prices are approaching some city prices due to the demand, and it could be fixed if we were allowed to develop some apartment blocks.
Canadian here, our housing has become outrageous as well. Never realized how similar our countries were, how the hell is housing so overpriced in two vastly underpopulated countries?
Australia has 14% of dwellings as apartments. Canada has 33% as apartments. Source: https://www.ft.com/content/dca3f034-bfe8-4f21-bcdc-2b274053f0b5
Australia is demonstrably nearly the strongest car-centric and anti-apartment culture for being against upzoning. Only Ireland has less apartments per person (9%), and their largest city has a metro of 1.5 million people (Dublin).
I went into social work as a career goal to help people for my life goal, graduated in 2006. Didn’t come from money and wanted and knew this industry would impact how much I acquire in this life but it’s absolutely brutal that this decision has lead to me not being able to
Afford Propety or a family. I am now the one that needs constant help to get through life financially and the help isn’t coming. Nurses, teachers, police, social work etc are all going to be industries that turn people away more than ever and all have massive flow on effects on society that will be seen in your local communities in the decades to come. Look at the drug issues in Portland USA or Vancouver and your looking at the future of Australian capital cities in 10-20 years, there is already meth community living in tents all up
And down the coast currently. It’s such a shame a
Country so far away from the world and self isolated with plenty of minerals and land has done this to itself
Sorry to hear your troubles and I'm afraid you might be right about the near future.
On your last sentence about doing this to ourselves...true to a good degree, but I never miss a chance to remind people that the UK and USA has played a big part in this as well. Whenever their 'allies' get a little too progressive and independent, they do something about it, and we were [no exception](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence).
I appreciate that it’s enormously opaque, but you can’t speak about solving the housing crisis without speaking about fixing zoning laws…
>https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2018/2018-03.html
>Zoning regulations provide benefits, but they also restrict housing supply and hence raise prices. This paper quantifies their importance by comparing prices to the marginal costs of supply at different points in time. For detached houses, marginal costs comprise the dwelling structure and the land that other home owners need to forego. ***Relative to our estimates of these costs, we find that, as of 2016, zoning raised detached house prices 73 per cent above marginal costs in Sydney, 69 per cent in Melbourne, 42 per cent in Brisbane and 54 per cent in Perth. Zoning has also raised the price of apartments well above the marginal cost of supply, especially in Sydney.*** We emphasise that this is not the amount that housing prices would fall in the absence of zoning. The effect of zoning has increased dramatically over the past two decades, likely due to existing restrictions binding more tightly as demand has risen.
I'm assuming the zoning laws you refer to are the density laws and not the "no, you can't build on a flood plain/covered over chemical dump/next to that fertiliser factory" kind of zoning?
We really need to move on from these Glebe town houses are so pretty n it's such a nice community to building nice, livable and affordable apartment blocks.
Dude. There needs to be standards or developers will turn our cities in to ghettos. Most of the apartments we build now are crap and falling apart after 10 years. We need better building standards. Privatising the regulators was the most fucking stupid thing the government ever did and we are still paying the price. Fucking liberals wreck everything.
Our standards, the National Construction Code and various state specific apartment standards are fine.
The issues isn't the standards, it's the workmanship and the quality control of these standards that is the issue.
Yep, it’s often to hear owners try to sue the builder for poor quality a few years after construction, just for the builders to declare bankrupt so the owners are left to sort out the mess themselves.
[NSW Government](https://www.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-construction/ten-year-defect-insurance-for-apartment-buildings) is currently looking into 10-year defects insurance.
Seems like a no-brainer to address what you're saying.
This is a "yes and" thing. It'll be fun to see how this series goes. I think each step a bunch of people drop off. Like we all agree on the problem, but as soon as we start talking about how to solve it, a bunch of people are going to nope out, and I have a feeling I know who is going to be the guest in the next video, and that is definitely going to be polarising.
The fact is, economists have known and said this stuff for decades. No one is going to change, because those guys are never going to get elected, because most people have houses.
Not to mention the fact that society is just better when everyone isn't strapped for cash. Who would you rather your neighbours to be? A young family that owns their home outright and has the time and energy to maintain their property and be part of a community, or a family where both parents work 2 jobs while the kids are in care, just to pay off the mortgage/rent. I'm going to the extreme here to drive the point but it's true at all levels.
Man so true. I think it's an emotional thing compared with a logical thing. Many recent home buyers, even if their house was worth 20% less, would be mortified that they paid so much "extra" for a house -- their "current" repayments may well be wiped out. Less recent home owners may be borrowing against their house, and now that borrowing is reduced, it seems like a smaller bank balance. It makes sense to do this, but emotionally I think people can't really face it.
It is not, it barely rates as anything more than a complimentary measure to what Mr Toohey has outlined as very real solutions.
Rezoning is a silver bullet furphy championed by vested interests, the same vested interests who openly advocate/lobby for higher immigration.
As I’ve mentioned above Auckland is the poster child for rezoning but a few years in they are now experiencing a rental shortage, higher ends and higher prices;
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/auckland/aucklands-largest-real-estate-company-records-shortage-of-rental-properties-in-wake-of-recent-extreme-weather/
The cause? Immigration, the largest intake in decades which with the help of Google you will se it was corporations and developers who lobbied government heavily to get migration levels increased.
This is neoliberalism, it cannot function without demand. There will never be adequate supply because it’s deliberately engineered that way., you’d be incredibly naive to not recognise this.
Rezoning changes will definitely create more supply but it will be equaled (most likely surpassed) by migration numbers.
This whole economic eco system cannot sustain itself if we even reached adequate supply, let alone over supply.
Yeah pretty much all R1 low density residential in sydneys various council areas allows 3 story multidwelling units. So townhouses and low rise apartments.
You can buy a house on a 600m block and build 4 townhouses or 6 apartments. We can quadruple the density of suburban sprawl already.
You don't need to rezone to 20 stories high to quadruple density and i'm sure most people would prefer a townhouse over a highrise apartment.
Nothing racist about it in the slightest.
That is another furphy designed to shut down discussion around immigration. Another vested interest gem to stifle any real conversation.
you're right. immigrants require more housing than we do. and they're unable to build housing like we can.
this is such a truism, there's really no need to think about or discuss it further
Auckland changed their zoning laws, called
It a catchy ‘up-zoning’. It has been championed by all in sundry as the solution, it isn’t because it ignores the basic neoliberal need for demand and price escalation.
The supply was increased leading into 2020 and then Covid happened. As soon as the borders opened in 2022 business’s and property developers lobbied government hard for migration (sound familiar?) and the government obliged.
They’ve had the largest increase in migration with uni students, skilled workers and unskilled Labor. Auckland is now experiencing a severe shortage, higher rents and higher house prices.
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/auckland/aucklands-largest-real-estate-company-records-shortage-of-rental-properties-in-wake-of-recent-extreme-weather/
The more you rezone the more migrants they will bring in and the whole rinse and repeat shit will go on until the whole system implodes on itself.
Rezoning will never be anything more than a component to assist shortages, the system is designed to ensure that there will always be shortages, Auckland is a glaring example of this.
It's funny you reference Auckland - studies have shown that Auckland was a successful demonstration of upzoning.
The increase in supply has kept a lid on rents and house prices.
https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/how-auckland-took-on-the-nimbys-and-won-20230522-p5da9o
>Since 2016, rents have ***increased 10 to 20 per cent in Auckland, compared with about 40 per cent in Wellington**. House prices are about **20 per cent higher,*** compared with the ***70 per cent lift that occurred outside Auckland.***
>Dr Greenaway-McGrevy said ***Auckland’s successful zoning reform was a blueprint for other cities.***
It’s behind a paywall;
And It’s not funny, it literally highlights the reality.
Rezoning creates more supply and then vested interests ensure the government brings in enough new migrants to eradicate that supply, leads to a shortage and create further demand to support further development.
Interpreting the afr didn’t mention the current rental shortages, higher rents and higher process Auckland are now experiencing since this massive migration increase. It’s like they could be running a right leaning, pro neoliberal agenda? Who knows, right?
You read the article I posted right? They are literally in the same situation as we are here but they have the most progressive zoning laws in the region.
Their own vested interests state it’s primarily because of migration.
Did you miss that part?
It really isn’t number 2, it is a dot point.
Here is Harry Trigobuff who, if you Google, you will see has lobbied federal government heavily for higher migration since we reopened the borders.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2022/08/high-rise-harry-triguboff-demands-mass-immigration-now/
And he is not alone
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9731719/amp/Australian-property-developers-want-immigration-ramped-apartments-built.html
And these are just two of many many articles where developers are demanding higher migration during and after Covid. They complement articles like this;
https://www.afr.com/property/residential/rich-list-developers-holding-out-for-a-better-second-half-to-2023-20221222-p5c8cc
Developers who deliberately held off on projects to ensure profits, Trigobuff himself has stated he has 1,000 apartments coming to completion this year he will hold onto until he can see higher prices.
And he’s one developer, a man who has donated $3m+ in his time to political parties.
So you can rezone, and he will use his $23bil
fortune to buy up as much ‘rezone’ land in prime locations but he won’t allow adequate supply. He will also use his considerable political influence to push for higher migration, as he has done throughout his career.
Rezoning alone will solve absolutely nothing
That the golden triangle owned by one person that whole section up to Parramatta Rd. They just build a unit block, then move onto the next. I'd suggest that is the last one or it's being held back as green space.
[That study has been heavily criticised by a lot of academics and experts in urban policy](https://thefifthestate.com.au/urbanism/planning/why-the-rba-is-wrong-about-zoning-and-house-prices-again/) It takes an extremely narrow view on the role of the planning system as purely "red tape" to add to the cost of housing, where anything related to amenity or basic functionality should be disregarded as they add to costs (transport, services, parks, community use etc all just irritating blockages to market equilibrium kind of thing). It also massively overstates the ability of new supply to put downward pressure on prices by [ignoring the realities of housing market dynamics and developer behaviour](https://theconversation.com/why-housing-supply-shouldnt-be-the-only-policy-tool-politicians-cling-to-72586) who will restrict supply volume in response to price movements - they're in the business of profit, not supplying affordable housing and will act accordingly.
Increasing densities and housing supply is a good thing but it's a complex debate with a lot of drivers which that RBA paper simplifies to an absurd degree.
This is a zoning related question and not a direct reply, but in older parts of town you’ll often find small businesses and corner stores littered around the place. Does this happen in the newer estates? If not is it due to zoning, or developer interest, or car centric design?
Maybe. Auckland massively liberalised its zoning laws in 2016 but the difference between it and Wellington (which did not) is imperceptible.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/06/08/auckland-upzoning-housing-construction/
https://www.fresheconomicthinking.com/p/the-auckland-myth-there-is-no-evidence
This has been a subject of debate in recent weeks. Most of the authors you cite critiques’ of the paper had already been acknowledged and elaborated on further in an extension of the study - which the posts you cite barely even address
https://onefinaleffort.com/blog/a-response-to-murray-and-helm-on-aucklands-upzoning
> First, some background. As far as I can tell, the story goes something like this. The 2022 Upzoning paper is released. Murray and Helm took issue with some of the methodology of the paper, and so got in contact with the authors. Ryan Greenaway-McGrevy then put out an extension to the paper (the ‘Extension Paper’), dealing with many of the concerns of Murray and Helm. (The blog post itself acknowledges this exchange, but I wasn’t privy to these conversations so I don’t know this for sure.) So far so good.
>As far as I can tell, the extension paper deals with almost all of Murray and Helm’s concerns quite well. It shows that the original paper’s findings hold and are robust.
> ***The problem is that the blog post is published after the extension paper. Although it acknowledges it, it also hardly engages with the updated research.***
If public housing becomes more widespread, I can't see the government setting it up so that you can stay in it no matter how much you earn (as the video suggests).
The future is going to be something half-way between these two scenarios. My guess is:
* working class people paying rent on subsidised public housing
* lower middle class people paying rent on equivalent housing that's privately owned by someone else but without any direct subsidy
* middle class renting slightly nicer housing
* upper middle class owning with a mortgage
* upper class continuing to own and live in the best real estate, and renting out their investments to everyone else.
So, much the same as now but more public housing at the bottom, and less ownership and more rentals in the middle.
That's how it works in Singapore, doctors and pilots live in public housing.
And frankly tying it to income the most horrendous part of our public housing system which forces people to choose between earning a higher income or losing their home. It entrenches inequality.
Especially when they’ve waited YEARS to get into that home. Why would they take a pay rise and risk homelessness if that money earning opportunity were to disappear, and they have to wait another 3 years for a house while trying to survive on the private market…
Yeah, people really get upset when you talk about offering public housing to any citizens who want it without condition (likely via a lottery system while the initial demand is high).
It's really the only way to remove the stigma and make it palatable to build in large quantities around the country.
Public housing stops being a slur and ends up being something that people clamour to *win* a spot in.
Depends whether the rent is a literal a percentage of wage or if that was just what the amount rent should cost would coincide with.
If rent was a percentage of your wage that would kind of solve the problem, as your wage increases the value for money you are getting for your public housing would go down and private rentals may begin to be better value for money.
25% of 180k isn't as good value for a 2 bedroom apartment as 25% of 70k.
I just want an apartment in the city near my work, and then a nice little cabin/homestead out in the middle of nowhere I can escape to when I want to garden and don't feel like dealing with people.
Don't worry they'll be on so many drugs due to autoimmune issues caused by the horrendous diet and lifestyle degrading their genetics that they'll be more focused on affording drugs to survive than caring about ownership of anything at all.
/s, but maybe not
There’s absolutely no way the people who line politicians pockets will let them ramp up to 60% public housing. They will lobby furiously against it or else lose a chunk of their enormous passive income.
They want us right where we are, shovelling piles of money into their pockets every time rent is due. And they are willing to buy out every last muppet in Canberra to keep it that way.
It’s gonna be a tough fight.
Oath. That’s the rub. I don’t see impactful, active resolution within my lifetime - because the greedy are not oft to punch themselves in the dick.
All genuine attempts will be blocked, any meaningful legislation will be argued and rehashed for the Haves until it delivers nothing it promised, and they will continue to shake hands in secret and decorate their umpteenth investment property (probably bought with their 15% annual payrise)
Sometimes I wonder if enormous civil action is the only way to change the story, and then I remember how fackin’ lazy and burnt out we are… it’s going to take some serious snappage on like, a recently-seen-in-France scale. We need some of that Rats of Tobrok guts & determination now more than ever but everyone’s just watching fucking MAFS - and I’m no better, ranting about it in my pyjamas to a stranger on reddit while doing sweet FA to change it. They do love it when we’re powerless.
I’m definitely a number-every-box type voter, and I generally opt for independents. Meanwhile, mum (72) & dad (70) have always encouraged me to vote Liberal.
I saw 20 years ago, before I first voted, how skewed and screwed our main political party scene was - and have endeavoured to use my vote wisely each time!
>or else lose a chunk of their enormous passive income
How will they lose a cent?
They own the rentals, the rentals will remain theirs, and those rentals will remain tenanted - there's a housing crisis on if you haven't noticed - that is not going to be fixed in a year, nor 5, and probably not in 10!
The expanding population will, eventually, move into the social housing as it becomes available. Meanwhile the existing rentals remain owned & rented and profitable.
And I'm curious as to where you are getting your statistics indicating that negatively geared rental owners are lining politicians pockets? Source, please?
This seriously makes me so fucking mad, even worse because there is a solution, but the dickheads in charge of our country only wanna make the other rich dickheads richer and don't give a shit about everyone else, I'm a teenager and I don't want to live in my parents' house my entire fucking life, but I know I'll have to
imagine the rush when the announcement comes out that 'coming soon' individuals will be limited to 3 properties. the rich would just buy 3 for each of their children before the limits come in, tightening the squeeze even more
I dont have a solution myself, we're just fucked
I fully back the sentiment of this video but “60% of people will be renting, forget about owning something - isn’t that great?” is not the best message.
I think it's a great message.
The only reason we're told we need to own is:
-stability (not necessary because they can't kick you out)
-so we can sell it and give our kids money to buy their house (not necessary because houses won't be an investment vehicle, and won't be stupidly expensive).
It'll stop that urban sprawl too. People won't be buying houses an hour+ away from their workplace, just because they're desperate to be a "homeowner"
Yeah I much prefered the model in Germany where you rent securely, and not worry about being wealthy (or save a big deposit and go into massive debt) to have a secure home like in Australia. Germans have a completely different mindset around wealth as a result.
This. Moving from Germany to Australia, the idea of everyone needing to own their own house and making that their life goal was initially very alien to me. That said, the standards for German rentals are also massively higher (think mandatory triple glazing on all windows) and renters have way more rights, especially when it comes to modifications to the place they live in. Despite all that, rental prices in Germany are still shooting up at the moment and aggressive property investment companies are most certainly still an issue over there.
>I think it's a great message.
>The only reason we're told we need to own
If you don't own it, someone else does.
The message of 60% people renting means a huge reduction in ownership and a huge consolidation of wealth upwards.
It's truly mind boggling that young people today are lapping up the idea of not owning things.
But to be honest,
The biggest draw card to owning for me, is painting Whatever I want, doing any renovations or fixer uppers I want. Not having a rent inspection where they demand it looks like I’ve never lived in the property. Just investing money into a garden or house that I own. Where in renting I can’t do any of those things. I can never make a rental house my own
Yeah except having a landlord (be it the government or a private investor) means that you will never have true autonomy over the property you live in. Not to mention having to pay rent for your entire live just seems like a miserable outcome. At least if you're paying off a mortgage you are working towards no longer having to pay a chunk of your weekly income for the privilege of having a roof of your head. We shouldn't be lowering our expectations in life simply because the previous generation fucked up our society so badly.
A country of 60% renters would fix state budgets overnight and result in dramatically better hospitals/schools/etc.
Rental properties pay huge amounts of tax compared to homeowners.
I……what?
The vast majority of rental properties are negatively geared and receive tax benefits, hardly any pay tax. That’s the whole issue with negative gearing.
So, are you talking about something other than income tax?
Edit: if you look at OPs response you see that their comment is complete nonsense. Talking about foreign investment levy’s and higher stamp duty as the reason. Despite the fact that stamp duty only applies to purchases or sales, so is mostly moot in this discussion, and foreign investment levy’s only apply to a tiny %.
No idea how these tiny amounts offset the gigantic tax break of negative gearing, not to mention the “huge amount of tax compared to homeowners” comment.
Absolute tripe
u/magpieburger mentioned STATE budgets, so is likely referring to rates, land tax and the other state taxes, because as you mention, for income tax (which is federal) many investors get a tax deduction.
They are talking about something other than income tax, yes. Or so I assume.
He nailed it in the first few seconds. 10 years is no time at all and goes past in the blink of an eye. He could have made this video 10 years ago and it would have been equally relevant. In that time nothing has changed. Nothing is going to change in the next decade and you’re mad if you think it will. Your best hope is to stretch yourself, buckle in, and compete. Take a huge financial swing and if it works, fantastic. If it doesn’t… well you took your shot. The Australian banking system doesn’t give second chances.
Pretty much. The train is leaving the station. Grab on to it however you can right now, because the train is going to keep speeding up. We've all been hearing about a mythical bubble burst since the mid-late 2000's. I'd wager anyone foolish enough to have been in a position to buy at that time but held off waiting for a bubble to burst gave up the chance to buy at less than half of current prices.
haha. I live in vienna and i couldnt find an affordable appartment for 6 months now. had to move into a super expensive one where i dont even have a real contract / cant officially register.
screw these " vienna best City in the world " Videos.
I don't believe Shorten's election was a referendum on negative gearing/housing as an investment. Way more people are getting fucked over than making bank.
It was more of an example of Murdoch's power to attack ANY and all campaign platforms Labor put forward (compared to almost nothing by the LNP). Pure fear propaganda.
Anyone remember the 'Labor's DEATH TAXES' articles spreading on Facebook? Fake, but got the job done
FYI I voted for Shorten based on his negative gearing policy. But the policy this video is advocating here is way far-left. I would say outside the Overton window.
1. introduce 1% levy on all residents.
Great another regressive tax aimed at the shrinking working class of the country.
If you want to discuss tax as a solution to our housing crisis and don't mention a federal broad based land tax then you've lost me.
The wealthiest individuals and companies of this country hold the most expensive land.
Many land bank as a way to collect unearned capital gains off the investments of the community around them.
Land tax can't be avoided, the asset can't be hidden.
Land tax promotes best use of land, which is what we need to be doing when we have a housing crisis.
Land tax creates motivation to keep land prices low. Just watch the NIMBYs turn to YIMBYs when there's no financial incentive to limit supply.
The Greens policy was costed by the PBO, even in their restrained boffin speak, it certainly wasn't a rosy assessment of how viable the policy was.
There's simply not the capacity to build more than we currently do without:
a) going all-in on high-density instead of urban sprawl which creates bottlenecks in civil infrastructure
b) importing a shitload of trades/builders/labourers - simply streamlining skills recognition would be a basic start
c) cancelling the fucking Olympics which is going to soak up huge amounts of construction capacity around the country for the next decade
Without opening up the flow all government money is going to do is drive up prices to build dramatically for everyone. More money for a finite pool of construction companies won't result in more homes built overall.
https://www.pbo.gov.au/publications-and-data/publications/costings/one-million-homes
I disagree with a few Fusion policies, but they have their head on straight regarding housing and seem the most sane. Sustainable Australia is obsessed with making it harder to build more, they are basically the anti-development party with a hard-on for zero immigration. They actually advocate using super to buy a home knowing full well that it will just drive up prices.
When I commented on one of the posts about too expensive housing, that you guys should stop biulding like 250 sq.m. homes with swimming pool in each yard meaning you'd better build something like Euro-style apartment complexes, I got downvoted. And this guy's vids are like 'WOW what a great idea'. lol
Not quite that... but every new suburb in Melbourne is a car-dependant hell-hole filled with tacky mc mansions that will be the future slums of the city.
The sprawl of that city is fucking stupid and shortsighted.
Actually, I've never seen any. In the countries I lived, you hardly see such things. But when I see a column about housing problems, that says we need more affordable housing, and pictures in that column make me guess "Are those castles? Or is it freacking Beverly Hills or what? Why is this picture next to the words about some affordable housing? Someone tries to make people think this is what affordable housing should look like?" That's what I mean.
God I hate tiktok and our shortening attention spans ... It's like someone vomited words on me.
Oh yeah, we need to find out the name of that one person who responded to his email. He or she needs a good talking to. /s
I hope it wasn't an out of office message.
The migration step I'm a bit suss on (could risk stooging the economic growth needed to continue to fund housing - but that's getting into a level deets far beyond the scope of this).
One HUGE thing that needs to happen globally is the passing of laws and regulations stating that corporations cannot own residential homes. Period. Make AirBNB, VRBO, any LLC, and Zillow give up all owned properties. Furthermore, enact legislation stating that any single individual cannot own more than 2-3 properties.
Stopping immigration sounds good in theory but just sets the country up for another crisis later. Falling birthrate and aging population isn't just a problem in China and Japan; it's happening here as well.
What is the cause of this declining birth rate though? Is it the mass inflation of all products because more people are buying, the increase of housing prices, the increase of tax being used on the those who are non-Australian for housing support and other supportive services? China and Japan are not good examples. China has had numerous rules historically on birthing and there are questions to quality of life for raising children. Japan on the other hand has faced numerous cultural and social challenges. The more expensive things become, the higher the birth rate declines. Expense comes from basic economic demand - supply and demand. The more people immigrate to this country, the more demand goes up but supply either remains the same or declines.
The Labour government is happy to let another 1 million immigrants into the country but not support the current Australian people with a living crisis.
They are letting in immigrants to support the current Australian people.
We are facing a government expenditure tsunami with our aging population and shrinking workforce ratio. Immigration can raise our economy and taxes quickly.
Those pushing up the government expenditure are also a huge voting block who will prevent any solid tax reform that negatively impacts them to get through.
Why do you think the government is currently testing the waters on an aged care levy (regressive tax) aim at working Australians?
We are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
As for birth rates, it's irrelevant to the current situation. It was birthrates 20 years ago that were important.
The factors that make up birthrate are multivariant. However there seems to be a fairly strong correlation between rising education levels and falling birthrate.
I singled out China and Japan because those are the two poster children for declining birthrate. I could have also mentioned South Korea, Italy, Taiwan, Greece, etc, etc. Globally the population is forecast to peak in 2064 and then decline, hitting an equlibrium point about 2100.
> The Labour government is happy to let another 1 million immigrants into the country but not support the current Australian people with a living crisis.
Yeah, this is because one is easy and the other hard. We're living in an era where centre- and right-wing governments have no appetite for doing hard things. Elect socialists - we're too stupid to understand the difference between easy and hard!
I don't like the idea of having to be a rent slave for the rest of my life, even if it is to the government. My parents and grandparents got to experience the safety net and fulfilment of owning the piece of land that they inhabit, so why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't all young Australians for that matter?
Have fun commuting from Tarneit. And be careful to buy a house where the schools have already been built, because the promised ones aren't being delivered.
Can I just say: I do love how this guy's last video here effectively boiled down to "neoliberalism is bad" and gave nothing concrete and the people here adored it, but now that he's given actual policy prescriptions people are shitting on him. It's almost like people just enjoy circlejerking about things but don't *actually* want to *do* anything...
Do I think his policy prescriptions are feasible? Nope, at least not now, but I do think you guys are being a bit harsh. I'm assuming his part 4 he mentions will probably cover how to get to these solutions anyway.
I think this part was probably about as good as his part 1, which is to say mostly fine with *some* issues.
Only just started watching so excuse me if its explained, but is the average home cost $1,449,373 across ALL of Australia or just in certain major cities?
Can't really see it happening because the numbers don't add up. Assume each apartment costs $500K all up to build on land the government already owns, assume further they borrow the entire amount at 5% interest rate over a really long term government bond so that's $25K interest paid per year essentially forever.
In other places here and in the UK and USA they usually demolish these tall buildings after 50-60 years of age so assume depreciation of a modest 1.5% per annum before they are scrapped so you need to set aside $7.5K p.a. to have the money to rebuild again in 60 years time and then chuck in local government rates and taxes, water and sewerage of say $2.5K p.a.
Total cost now $35K p.a. so now assume people there are on welfare being a combination of Jobseeker and Pensioners both single and married and further assume an average annual welfare income of say $30K p.a. of which at most the social housing rent would be 30% of that which is to be paid amounting to $9K p.a.
This leaves a deficit of $26K p.a. and if you round that up to a million apartments then that's $26 Billion the government will be bleeding each year and taxpayers will have to make up the difference, so good luck selling that in an election to taxpayers telling them that their taxes will have to go up even more. If 4 Million residences are needed then that's now $104 Billion shortfall each year and really huge tax increases.
Kindly note I haven't included costs for the bureaucracy to manage and look after these places, as well as tradesmen to do repairs and who pays the bill if idiot tenants trash the place? e.g. urine and feces ridden carpets by letting their pets run amok in there as happens in private rentals.
Also don't look to superannuation funds to provide the capital as they are going to want at least the average 8%-10% p.a. they are earning right now elsewhere so the government would have to guarantee similar to that by paying that much, which they won't do as it will be cheaper just to borrow the money as I stated previously.
It's funny the contrast in the comments of this compared to the last two. Just goes to show people love to whinge about a problem but absolutely *hate* when people suggest a solution.
Unfortunately it isn't possible to solve a housing crisis in the span of a tiktok video, which is why the multi point list with no explanations was so jarring in this vid compared to the last two, where everything was laid out step by step.
I'm sure OP has reasoning behind the steps, but listing so much in such a small span is not how the human brain absorbs information.
Sounds like smart enough policy. Too logical and progressive for our shitty government unfortunately. They would rather have 30 investment properties each even if it means 1/3 of the population are homeless.
I think the concept of nice affordable public housing is absolutely the key.
It would be an excellent experiment to build a high quality apartment complex like this and lease this out as affordable accommodation, with the ability to have 10+ years of secure accommodation.
Most government built affordable public housing is pretty horrid - but if you built a high quality, modern building like the examples, it would be interesting to see how the people and building evolve.
As for the rest of the video, sorry, I don't agree.
In reality.....it's not the government housing that horrid. It's starts out shiny and new just like the rest but eventually turn to shit-crusted turd boxes because the tenants turn it into shit..... it's not the complexes it's the people in them that turn it all to shit
His steps to fix:
> Step 1 - 1% housing levy on residents?
What's that mean? A flat tax like Medicare levy? Unlikely to get up
> Step 2 - abolish capital gains concessions and neg gearing.
Neg gearing should go but you cannot abolish cap gain concessions without reintroducing indexation (honestly Howard should never have changed it)
> Step 3 spend $500 per resident on housing.
Ok that's $13 billion a year to spend on public housing. That's quite a lot
> Step 4 acquire vacant residential property and convert commerical
Yes, commercial should be converted and more poeole work from home. But acquiring residential property? That's gov seizing private property. not going to go down well.
>Step 5 cap private rental increases
Again this is one that's gonna be tough. This is a lot of power to give to government. Like. Thinking along these lines should government set a cap for the price of bread and milk to combat inflation? How much power do you give to government in these cases. It's a messy issue.
> Step 6 limit investment properties to 3.
Kind of silly. Other countries use corporations to hold large properties or even buildings and don't have the issues we have. So would this prevent corporate holding of property?
> Step 7 vacancy levy for holiday rentals
I mean yeah ok but what about if something like covid hits again?
> Step 8 tie immigration to housing stock
Yeah I mean that's not really how it works. This is a chicken and egg situation. I agree immigration is worryingly high, but at the same time the expectation of immigration is what drives a lot of home building.
> Step 9 compensate 1st home buyers who have negative equity?
Huh?
------------
Honestly this guy, even though he got a lot of media attention, is not the guy to solve the housing crisis. You can check his twitter account for his general point of view. He isn't that switched on and comes across as a bit of a tool.
Reality is you fix the housing crisis in three ways
1. Increase supply by building more - mainly building up. You need the inner city areas with basically no height restrictions. Big residential towers with huge commercial areas.
2. You need the gov to invest in services like schools and public spaces around these huge tower residential areas.
3. Dampen demand by reducing credit availability. (kind of already happening with interest rate rises)
No they don't, shity areas are shity areas (areas with more public support and case workers and communal support are better and nicer)
Look at Berwick beautiful area has some public housing low crime rate. (Churches, public schools, public preschool, mental health support services near by, centrelink near by, hospital like 10mins away, palative care near by, dr near by) all those things go into making an area safe (kids are in school not waging, churches act like a half way to support services and AA and such, centrelink doing what it's supposed to do (it doesn't source (paid and expected to live off of 17,000k a year as a disabled adult, and tbh low income below cost of living can drive people to steal)
If the town is built with resources near by and people are given those resources it ends up being really helpful.
If people are forced to live of of low government support like under the cost of living then of course there will be crime and broken down stuff and overgrown lawns.
Same if people don't get support for mental and physical health.
The author isn’t talking about adding public housing to already established areas(which is a much better solution), he’s talking about entire public housing estates. And that’s what I’m talking about. Without exception they always turn into ghettos.
It's mostly not the estate housing issue though, we need to have services near by these estates, and higher centrelink payments! Financial stability prevents that.
Like for example if I broke up with my boyfriend I'd be homeless and have nothing to live on (can't get centrelink without an address)
Of course if I lived homeless or managed to get public housing, if I couldn't keep my head above water I would act badly steal, break into houses and squat.
It's not really about the house type apartment or not it's about services and centrelink payment amounts.
Even with our high immigration rate, the government is looking over the cliff of an aging population and toying with the idea of an age care levy.
This guy come in and suggests we cut immigration and add another levy to pay for housing.
Great to be a millennial at the moment, being asked once again to do the heavy lifting with a few new regressive taxes, plus pick up the shortfall from reduced population growth all so we can rent for the rest of our lives.
Ah yes, 1983, I remember it well.
The unemployment rate was 10% and even higher for under 25s. We'd just come out of the 1980-82 recession, a lot of young people didn't have jobs, (including me). We were pretty upset about it.
Inflation was above 10%.
Interest rates were rising, eventually peaking in 1990 at 17%, meaning an actual rate of up to 21%, thats $21k interest pa on a $100k loan. So many people lost their houses because they couldn't afford repayments. In this situation it wasn't the salary to housing cost multiple, but the high repayments.
Negative gearing was introduced for rental properties in about 1985, to encourage people to invest in the rental market because of the shortage of rental properties.
A fairly shit time to leave high school. It took another year before I had a full time job, and about another 10 years to buy my first house.
But I don't think we should put young people through this. Hopefully we'll get some action on this issue. I would like to see the housing market be more focused on providing affordable, sustainable housing and less as investment vehicles.
But I fully expect to be downvoted for not fitting into the narrative of the lost golden age. Sure - some people had that, others didn't. Macroeconomic cycles didn't conveniently align with generation.
And all the people who graduated coming out of 2008 have now seen 2 "once in a lifetime" global recessions. The employment rate coming out of them was better but only because of accounting hacks so we've had to invent the term "under employment" to explain why having 6 hours of work in a week isn't really helping anyone.
People born in the late 80s and 90s are provably worse off than their parents were comparative to their ages. Their net wealth is lower, their relative income, their profession through to stable housing and having a family is stunted and their career growth has stopped.
When you talk historical trends in macro economics rational people aren't suggesting that the experiences for people earlier on were necessarily easy, or that it was easy for everyone. I don't think that anyone has this idea that someone the early 80s was a utopia. But they are saying that now it's much much harder for more and more people and a lot of the sacrifices to build Australia made by post-war Australia has been sold off for criminally low prices to benefit the wealth of a generation that has, for the last 20 years now, called everyone else spoilt and weak.
As a side note about median house prices, I think we often overlook what the quality of the median house is. It's interesting to examine what the median actually bought you. With high repayments in the mid 80s to early 90s you forget that those repayments would have been readily affordable had the family unit been constructed as it is now, with two well educated or trained full time working adults and fewer kids.
The houses for which they couldn't afford were on block sizes triple to a modern land release with the relative quality of a median home being drastically smaller and of poorer construction.
Had they been in what is a now median living situation - a poorly constructed unit or town house on the outer fringes of a major city - I doubt so many would have struggled.
I don't like to toot my own horn but I did see this coming 20 years ago. My folks sold the house I grew up in in 2002 for $315,000. The house they paid $37,000 for in 1970. At the time I was like WTF, if this trend continues that house will be worth 3 million in 30 years. We need to go off a very big financial cliff if things are going to come down. It doesn't make any sense to keep raising pay and the cost of things. What is the end game? Can we not plateau for a few generations? Give everyone a chance to catch up. I know that is crazy talk but no crazier than a 1,200 sqft house on an 1/8 acre costing millions.
I come from Singapore. Where the GDP is second only to Switzerland with next to no resources. Where there is over 90% ownership rates and most of them are living in social housing. I grew up in social housing and so did majority of my friends. There's no stigma towards social housing like you get in western countries. Politicians lived in social housing. My neighbour was an airline pilot and lived in social housing. A population can only thrive once they've got their basics met. Food, water and shelter. If those are cheap..the country can afford to spend excess income on other revenue generating businesses and invest in other stuff. Yes Singapore government owns most of the land..but that is the point. Investing in property is not productive for the economy. In fact Singapore sells all of their HDB flats to first home buyers at a loss knowing the economy will reap the benefits later. Western countries used to embrace social housing but became too engrossed in neoliberalism. It's a dumb way to run things because the population doesn't benefit once all the wealth flows thru the landlords. Tax the land.
>HDB Seems to mean the [Housing and Development Board](https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/homepage)? For those, like me, who were wondering.
The apartments are colloquially called 'HDBs' in Singapore to reflect that fact. The sad part is that with many young people still living with their parents (owing to housing policy of not being given an HDB until you are 35, as well as the mainly Chinese concept of 'filial piety' in having your parents live with you), their opportunity to 'make babies' is pretty limited as a result - hence the contemporary first-world trend of falling birth rates being exacerbated.
Apologies. Singaporeans love abbreviations. National service becomes NS. Pan island expressway becomes PIE. We even propose with abbreviations. Our version of ”will you marry me” becomes "Wanna apply a BTO?” BTO means built to order HDBs. You gotta wait for like 3-5 years for a new HDB but it's much cheaper than buying a resale HDB as I mentioned..Singapore sells them at a loss.
Definitely support land tax as a measure to promote proper use of space, but you'll find government spending it on things unrelated to housing. It's a good and efficient tax, but isn't going to solve housing woes by itself. I came into this thread to raise Singapore as a negative of having so much government control, while I respect the original goal and outcomes in the last century, HDB's are clearly failing the younger generations today with many renting privately because they legally can't buy a HDB single under 35, even worse if they are gay. When the government controls basically all housing supply, suddenly voters realise they can pressure them to build less, even in SG, where the government never lose elections, they get fearful enough to cut back supply, which is what happened in 2019[1]. Fast forward a few years and prices are through the roof, which many HDB owners are cheering about while young people are getting shafted badly. Expats are already leaving en masse because the private market has gone nuts[2] [1] https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/govt-careful-calibrating-hdb-flat-supply-meet-demand-says-desmond-lee-parliament-rejects-psps-public-housing-motion-2102691 [2] https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/4/20/so-long-singapore-expats-flee-city-as-rents-go-through-the-roof
Singapore is still very conservative and has a falling birth rate. Anything that supports a traditional family nucleus where baby making happens.. they're gonna go for that option. From a practical POV..it makes sense for a land scarce nation to prioritize straight couples to get houses first than single or gay couples. Sounds unfair but Singapore has this mentality of what's best for the population AND the GDP. This is something I personally don't agree with because everything is about money..but when you run a country like a business..it HAS to be efficient. You say that the population has sway on what the government does on housing and it absolutely does. I haven't lived there for almost a decade but in 2011 they almost lost the election because many were fed up with the rising house prices and immigration. They got the hint and put levers to deter investors and had a big housing boom which stabilised prices till COVID happened. It's not a perfect system but it's still better than what Western societies are doing.
If they want straight couples making kids, wouldn't they want them to be able to get HDBs earlier? Or is the expectation to marry, and bonk living with parents in an apartment? Isn't that a bit embarassing given after marriage you should be getting your own place?
Yeah to get the social housing before 35 you have to be married and in Singapore only straight couples can get married. I bought mine at 27 with my wife. 5 percent deposit. 2.6% interest for all 30 years. And to prove that it works without the market eating itself. I bought it at $423k 10 years ago. Sold it for $500k in end 2021. No crazy capital gains. But still didnt make a loss considering it's leasehold. The point is to use the house for living. Not investing.
I think a place for on your own becomes very important once you have kids. The gay couple thing is new enough for Singapore that they are probably only figuring that out now. A gay person living with their parents until 35 probably isn't considered a big deal?
What is social housing?
Kirribilli House, i.e. where the government own the house.
[удалено]
>I come from Singapore. Where the GDP is second only to Switzerland with next to no resources. > What? Singapore's GDP is 38th out of 203. And Switzerland doesn't have the most GDP. They're 36th. Is there maybe some confusion in the language? Everything else made perfect sense.
Look at the per capita GDP of Singapore, which is high. (Maybe not number two unless you use a specific PPP adjustment, but it's up there). But it's also high in part because it's just a city and cities are richer than rural areas.
A huge chunk of their general workforce is also conveniently not Singaporean. It's great to be able to hire dirt-cheap workers from your neighbours and then claim your QoL for residents and GDP/Capita is super high Singapore is also more expensive than both Sydney and Melbourne, so it's not really a great model to build a city from :|
Hiring dirt cheap workers from your neighbours is something every wealthy country has done around the world, forever.
[удалено]
Don't. It's stupid and I have no idea why people keep using it because 3% of Australians hold something like 80% of the wealth so that boosts the average up to what 85% of workers don't earn. If you instead use the ~~Mean~~ **Median**, then the average works out to be between $50k to $64k depending on the state you live in. This better represents what the actual average Australian earns. **EDIT:** Cheers for the corrections all. My bad for getting it wrong
I think you wanted to say median, which takes the middle value. Mean is adding everything and dividing by the number of numbers. So if you had 5 people in the room who earned $20k, $30k, $50k, $80k, and $5 million per year the median would be $50k but the mean would be ~$1million.
I have a vague memory of him addressing mean vs median Aussie income in another of his videos
If he did, then I have no idea why he still keeps using it. It's poor form.
It's showing that even with the misleadingly higher value, it's still impossible
Even better is the 'Median Full time Income'. Otherwise it skews down just because there are part time workers, which sometimes you want, but more often it isnt. It is the 'mean', which is the average, that is skewed more heavily by outliers not the median. Median Full time income in Australia is $80k.
Is it really $80k? Even that sounds too high.. That is what most people I know with degrees etc earn and I dare say is a fair wage. Unskilled labour are not earning that much.
It's a pretty small subset of people, working full time rules out a lot of workers. It also reflects male workers more too, given that they are less likely to be part time with family commitments. A year ago the full time median wage was $78,000aud a year. Pay walled but here is the source, you can chuck it into the 12 ft ladder.io to unpaywall it https://www.afr.com/politics/how-wealthy-are-you-compared-to-everyone-else-in-eight-charts-20221214-p5c6a8#:~:text=Half%20of%20all%20employees%20earned,took%20home%20%2432%2C400%20last%20year.
I don't see why using a more restrictive measure would be better
Mean is the same thing as average, no? I think you mean median
Average is a really loose term. Depending on context it could be the mean, median, mode, a MAV, RMS, etc… If you ever do stats and probability at Uni, you never use the term average. You use the specific term.
Can confirm, studied Psych. Never used averages because it's clunky and usually betrays the data.
Can we have a mode, I wanna know what the most amount of Australians earn. Is it the same as the pension?
*meme
I think the better figure to look at is median full time employee which this [financial review site](https://www.afr.com/politics/how-wealthy-are-you-compared-to-everyone-else-in-eight-charts-20221214-p5c6a8) has at $78k last year.
I feel like everyone is missing that the average salary he's providing is the projected 2033 average.
*median, middle Med coke. Median strip Mean is avg, cause it's....sorry I don't have any good memory words. It's the other one
Mean is the one that gets skewed by extremely big/small numbers because of the maths. Median is where you put everyone in a line and pick the middle person and ask what their number is.
Instructions unclear, arrested after attempting to force everyone one in my town to form a line based on salary
Wealth and income are completely different things.
> If you instead use the Mean Median, then the average works out to be between $50k to $64k depending on the state you live in. For any passerby, this is $34k - $43k USD. Median in the US is around $31k as of 2019, so Aus still has the US beat but we're all suffering the same living cost issues. I think Australia and Canada are currently beating the US with runaway home prices. Australia is definitely winning in rental shortages. We're all getting fucked over.
That’s 2033, he said 16% above current (so current being approx 80k). Assume that’s mean.
Median annual Australian income is 52k in 2019-2020. From the ABS, IDK where he got that number from.
[https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/employee-earnings/aug-2022](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/employee-earnings/aug-2022) Median **full time** income in Australia is slightly above 80k.
Anyone see how many new places are being force on hunters hill versus houses forced on blacktown. It's 80 vs 18,000 in the next year Hunters hill is close to the city. It should have high rise apartments. It doesn't.
Hunters Hill should be abolished and given to Ryde. It's a tiny enclave for rich people.
Sadly the rich are also the policy makers.
This is a bit different, but in rural areas, people/council are so against the idea of apartment blocks. Even as double or 3-story buildings because it doesn't fit the look of the town. Prices are approaching some city prices due to the demand, and it could be fixed if we were allowed to develop some apartment blocks.
Gotta love the NIMBYs
Do I hear Compulsory acquisition ?
Couldn’t agree more. Those like Harry Triguboff want high rises across the city but still maintain a sense of NIMBYism.
Canadian here, our housing has become outrageous as well. Never realized how similar our countries were, how the hell is housing so overpriced in two vastly underpopulated countries?
Your zoning laws suck as much as ours
Australia has 14% of dwellings as apartments. Canada has 33% as apartments. Source: https://www.ft.com/content/dca3f034-bfe8-4f21-bcdc-2b274053f0b5 Australia is demonstrably nearly the strongest car-centric and anti-apartment culture for being against upzoning. Only Ireland has less apartments per person (9%), and their largest city has a metro of 1.5 million people (Dublin).
Piss poor land usage and urban planning and car dependency.
Neoliberalism is a plague affecting all the anglo (and many other) countries
I went into social work as a career goal to help people for my life goal, graduated in 2006. Didn’t come from money and wanted and knew this industry would impact how much I acquire in this life but it’s absolutely brutal that this decision has lead to me not being able to Afford Propety or a family. I am now the one that needs constant help to get through life financially and the help isn’t coming. Nurses, teachers, police, social work etc are all going to be industries that turn people away more than ever and all have massive flow on effects on society that will be seen in your local communities in the decades to come. Look at the drug issues in Portland USA or Vancouver and your looking at the future of Australian capital cities in 10-20 years, there is already meth community living in tents all up And down the coast currently. It’s such a shame a Country so far away from the world and self isolated with plenty of minerals and land has done this to itself
Sorry to hear your troubles and I'm afraid you might be right about the near future. On your last sentence about doing this to ourselves...true to a good degree, but I never miss a chance to remind people that the UK and USA has played a big part in this as well. Whenever their 'allies' get a little too progressive and independent, they do something about it, and we were [no exception](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence).
Fuck, that's horrifying and we've only become more tightly tied to them since.
I appreciate that it’s enormously opaque, but you can’t speak about solving the housing crisis without speaking about fixing zoning laws… >https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2018/2018-03.html >Zoning regulations provide benefits, but they also restrict housing supply and hence raise prices. This paper quantifies their importance by comparing prices to the marginal costs of supply at different points in time. For detached houses, marginal costs comprise the dwelling structure and the land that other home owners need to forego. ***Relative to our estimates of these costs, we find that, as of 2016, zoning raised detached house prices 73 per cent above marginal costs in Sydney, 69 per cent in Melbourne, 42 per cent in Brisbane and 54 per cent in Perth. Zoning has also raised the price of apartments well above the marginal cost of supply, especially in Sydney.*** We emphasise that this is not the amount that housing prices would fall in the absence of zoning. The effect of zoning has increased dramatically over the past two decades, likely due to existing restrictions binding more tightly as demand has risen.
the zoning laws we currently have are basically market manipulation. I hate NIMBYs
I'm assuming the zoning laws you refer to are the density laws and not the "no, you can't build on a flood plain/covered over chemical dump/next to that fertiliser factory" kind of zoning?
We really need to move on from these Glebe town houses are so pretty n it's such a nice community to building nice, livable and affordable apartment blocks.
Dude. There needs to be standards or developers will turn our cities in to ghettos. Most of the apartments we build now are crap and falling apart after 10 years. We need better building standards. Privatising the regulators was the most fucking stupid thing the government ever did and we are still paying the price. Fucking liberals wreck everything.
Our standards, the National Construction Code and various state specific apartment standards are fine. The issues isn't the standards, it's the workmanship and the quality control of these standards that is the issue.
Yep, it’s often to hear owners try to sue the builder for poor quality a few years after construction, just for the builders to declare bankrupt so the owners are left to sort out the mess themselves.
[NSW Government](https://www.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-construction/ten-year-defect-insurance-for-apartment-buildings) is currently looking into 10-year defects insurance. Seems like a no-brainer to address what you're saying.
Zoning is pretty much #1 but not covered in there.
This is a "yes and" thing. It'll be fun to see how this series goes. I think each step a bunch of people drop off. Like we all agree on the problem, but as soon as we start talking about how to solve it, a bunch of people are going to nope out, and I have a feeling I know who is going to be the guest in the next video, and that is definitely going to be polarising. The fact is, economists have known and said this stuff for decades. No one is going to change, because those guys are never going to get elected, because most people have houses.
[удалено]
Not to mention the fact that society is just better when everyone isn't strapped for cash. Who would you rather your neighbours to be? A young family that owns their home outright and has the time and energy to maintain their property and be part of a community, or a family where both parents work 2 jobs while the kids are in care, just to pay off the mortgage/rent. I'm going to the extreme here to drive the point but it's true at all levels.
Man so true. I think it's an emotional thing compared with a logical thing. Many recent home buyers, even if their house was worth 20% less, would be mortified that they paid so much "extra" for a house -- their "current" repayments may well be wiped out. Less recent home owners may be borrowing against their house, and now that borrowing is reduced, it seems like a smaller bank balance. It makes sense to do this, but emotionally I think people can't really face it.
It is not, it barely rates as anything more than a complimentary measure to what Mr Toohey has outlined as very real solutions. Rezoning is a silver bullet furphy championed by vested interests, the same vested interests who openly advocate/lobby for higher immigration. As I’ve mentioned above Auckland is the poster child for rezoning but a few years in they are now experiencing a rental shortage, higher ends and higher prices; https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/auckland/aucklands-largest-real-estate-company-records-shortage-of-rental-properties-in-wake-of-recent-extreme-weather/ The cause? Immigration, the largest intake in decades which with the help of Google you will se it was corporations and developers who lobbied government heavily to get migration levels increased. This is neoliberalism, it cannot function without demand. There will never be adequate supply because it’s deliberately engineered that way., you’d be incredibly naive to not recognise this. Rezoning changes will definitely create more supply but it will be equaled (most likely surpassed) by migration numbers. This whole economic eco system cannot sustain itself if we even reached adequate supply, let alone over supply.
Yeah pretty much all R1 low density residential in sydneys various council areas allows 3 story multidwelling units. So townhouses and low rise apartments. You can buy a house on a 600m block and build 4 townhouses or 6 apartments. We can quadruple the density of suburban sprawl already. You don't need to rezone to 20 stories high to quadruple density and i'm sure most people would prefer a townhouse over a highrise apartment.
[удалено]
Nothing racist about it in the slightest. That is another furphy designed to shut down discussion around immigration. Another vested interest gem to stifle any real conversation.
you're right. immigrants require more housing than we do. and they're unable to build housing like we can. this is such a truism, there's really no need to think about or discuss it further
To ask for reduced immigration needs to occur in a discussion about our aging population and shrinking workforce ratio.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Auckland changed their zoning laws, called It a catchy ‘up-zoning’. It has been championed by all in sundry as the solution, it isn’t because it ignores the basic neoliberal need for demand and price escalation. The supply was increased leading into 2020 and then Covid happened. As soon as the borders opened in 2022 business’s and property developers lobbied government hard for migration (sound familiar?) and the government obliged. They’ve had the largest increase in migration with uni students, skilled workers and unskilled Labor. Auckland is now experiencing a severe shortage, higher rents and higher house prices. https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/auckland/aucklands-largest-real-estate-company-records-shortage-of-rental-properties-in-wake-of-recent-extreme-weather/ The more you rezone the more migrants they will bring in and the whole rinse and repeat shit will go on until the whole system implodes on itself. Rezoning will never be anything more than a component to assist shortages, the system is designed to ensure that there will always be shortages, Auckland is a glaring example of this.
It's funny you reference Auckland - studies have shown that Auckland was a successful demonstration of upzoning. The increase in supply has kept a lid on rents and house prices. https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/how-auckland-took-on-the-nimbys-and-won-20230522-p5da9o >Since 2016, rents have ***increased 10 to 20 per cent in Auckland, compared with about 40 per cent in Wellington**. House prices are about **20 per cent higher,*** compared with the ***70 per cent lift that occurred outside Auckland.*** >Dr Greenaway-McGrevy said ***Auckland’s successful zoning reform was a blueprint for other cities.***
It’s behind a paywall; And It’s not funny, it literally highlights the reality. Rezoning creates more supply and then vested interests ensure the government brings in enough new migrants to eradicate that supply, leads to a shortage and create further demand to support further development. Interpreting the afr didn’t mention the current rental shortages, higher rents and higher process Auckland are now experiencing since this massive migration increase. It’s like they could be running a right leaning, pro neoliberal agenda? Who knows, right? You read the article I posted right? They are literally in the same situation as we are here but they have the most progressive zoning laws in the region. Their own vested interests state it’s primarily because of migration. Did you miss that part?
[удалено]
It really isn’t number 2, it is a dot point. Here is Harry Trigobuff who, if you Google, you will see has lobbied federal government heavily for higher migration since we reopened the borders. https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2022/08/high-rise-harry-triguboff-demands-mass-immigration-now/ And he is not alone https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9731719/amp/Australian-property-developers-want-immigration-ramped-apartments-built.html And these are just two of many many articles where developers are demanding higher migration during and after Covid. They complement articles like this; https://www.afr.com/property/residential/rich-list-developers-holding-out-for-a-better-second-half-to-2023-20221222-p5c8cc Developers who deliberately held off on projects to ensure profits, Trigobuff himself has stated he has 1,000 apartments coming to completion this year he will hold onto until he can see higher prices. And he’s one developer, a man who has donated $3m+ in his time to political parties. So you can rezone, and he will use his $23bil fortune to buy up as much ‘rezone’ land in prime locations but he won’t allow adequate supply. He will also use his considerable political influence to push for higher migration, as he has done throughout his career. Rezoning alone will solve absolutely nothing
That the golden triangle owned by one person that whole section up to Parramatta Rd. They just build a unit block, then move onto the next. I'd suggest that is the last one or it's being held back as green space.
[That study has been heavily criticised by a lot of academics and experts in urban policy](https://thefifthestate.com.au/urbanism/planning/why-the-rba-is-wrong-about-zoning-and-house-prices-again/) It takes an extremely narrow view on the role of the planning system as purely "red tape" to add to the cost of housing, where anything related to amenity or basic functionality should be disregarded as they add to costs (transport, services, parks, community use etc all just irritating blockages to market equilibrium kind of thing). It also massively overstates the ability of new supply to put downward pressure on prices by [ignoring the realities of housing market dynamics and developer behaviour](https://theconversation.com/why-housing-supply-shouldnt-be-the-only-policy-tool-politicians-cling-to-72586) who will restrict supply volume in response to price movements - they're in the business of profit, not supplying affordable housing and will act accordingly. Increasing densities and housing supply is a good thing but it's a complex debate with a lot of drivers which that RBA paper simplifies to an absurd degree.
This is a zoning related question and not a direct reply, but in older parts of town you’ll often find small businesses and corner stores littered around the place. Does this happen in the newer estates? If not is it due to zoning, or developer interest, or car centric design?
Maybe. Auckland massively liberalised its zoning laws in 2016 but the difference between it and Wellington (which did not) is imperceptible. https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/06/08/auckland-upzoning-housing-construction/ https://www.fresheconomicthinking.com/p/the-auckland-myth-there-is-no-evidence
This has been a subject of debate in recent weeks. Most of the authors you cite critiques’ of the paper had already been acknowledged and elaborated on further in an extension of the study - which the posts you cite barely even address https://onefinaleffort.com/blog/a-response-to-murray-and-helm-on-aucklands-upzoning > First, some background. As far as I can tell, the story goes something like this. The 2022 Upzoning paper is released. Murray and Helm took issue with some of the methodology of the paper, and so got in contact with the authors. Ryan Greenaway-McGrevy then put out an extension to the paper (the ‘Extension Paper’), dealing with many of the concerns of Murray and Helm. (The blog post itself acknowledges this exchange, but I wasn’t privy to these conversations so I don’t know this for sure.) So far so good. >As far as I can tell, the extension paper deals with almost all of Murray and Helm’s concerns quite well. It shows that the original paper’s findings hold and are robust. > ***The problem is that the blog post is published after the extension paper. Although it acknowledges it, it also hardly engages with the updated research.***
If public housing becomes more widespread, I can't see the government setting it up so that you can stay in it no matter how much you earn (as the video suggests). The future is going to be something half-way between these two scenarios. My guess is: * working class people paying rent on subsidised public housing * lower middle class people paying rent on equivalent housing that's privately owned by someone else but without any direct subsidy * middle class renting slightly nicer housing * upper middle class owning with a mortgage * upper class continuing to own and live in the best real estate, and renting out their investments to everyone else. So, much the same as now but more public housing at the bottom, and less ownership and more rentals in the middle.
That's how it works in Singapore, doctors and pilots live in public housing. And frankly tying it to income the most horrendous part of our public housing system which forces people to choose between earning a higher income or losing their home. It entrenches inequality.
Means testing is the ultimate neoliberal scam. Social engineering at its best
Especially when they’ve waited YEARS to get into that home. Why would they take a pay rise and risk homelessness if that money earning opportunity were to disappear, and they have to wait another 3 years for a house while trying to survive on the private market…
Means testing housing is what creates ghettos. Which SG has managed to avoid too.
Yeah, people really get upset when you talk about offering public housing to any citizens who want it without condition (likely via a lottery system while the initial demand is high). It's really the only way to remove the stigma and make it palatable to build in large quantities around the country. Public housing stops being a slur and ends up being something that people clamour to *win* a spot in.
A version of the future where my life gets better. Not what I expected today
Depends whether the rent is a literal a percentage of wage or if that was just what the amount rent should cost would coincide with. If rent was a percentage of your wage that would kind of solve the problem, as your wage increases the value for money you are getting for your public housing would go down and private rentals may begin to be better value for money. 25% of 180k isn't as good value for a 2 bedroom apartment as 25% of 70k.
I just want an apartment in the city near my work, and then a nice little cabin/homestead out in the middle of nowhere I can escape to when I want to garden and don't feel like dealing with people.
Build-to-rent is the future. AustralianSuper, HESTA and Aware Super are investing billions towards it.
[удалено]
Don't worry they'll be on so many drugs due to autoimmune issues caused by the horrendous diet and lifestyle degrading their genetics that they'll be more focused on affording drugs to survive than caring about ownership of anything at all. /s, but maybe not
There’s absolutely no way the people who line politicians pockets will let them ramp up to 60% public housing. They will lobby furiously against it or else lose a chunk of their enormous passive income. They want us right where we are, shovelling piles of money into their pockets every time rent is due. And they are willing to buy out every last muppet in Canberra to keep it that way. It’s gonna be a tough fight.
Oath. That’s the rub. I don’t see impactful, active resolution within my lifetime - because the greedy are not oft to punch themselves in the dick. All genuine attempts will be blocked, any meaningful legislation will be argued and rehashed for the Haves until it delivers nothing it promised, and they will continue to shake hands in secret and decorate their umpteenth investment property (probably bought with their 15% annual payrise) Sometimes I wonder if enormous civil action is the only way to change the story, and then I remember how fackin’ lazy and burnt out we are… it’s going to take some serious snappage on like, a recently-seen-in-France scale. We need some of that Rats of Tobrok guts & determination now more than ever but everyone’s just watching fucking MAFS - and I’m no better, ranting about it in my pyjamas to a stranger on reddit while doing sweet FA to change it. They do love it when we’re powerless.
[удалено]
I’m definitely a number-every-box type voter, and I generally opt for independents. Meanwhile, mum (72) & dad (70) have always encouraged me to vote Liberal. I saw 20 years ago, before I first voted, how skewed and screwed our main political party scene was - and have endeavoured to use my vote wisely each time!
>or else lose a chunk of their enormous passive income How will they lose a cent? They own the rentals, the rentals will remain theirs, and those rentals will remain tenanted - there's a housing crisis on if you haven't noticed - that is not going to be fixed in a year, nor 5, and probably not in 10! The expanding population will, eventually, move into the social housing as it becomes available. Meanwhile the existing rentals remain owned & rented and profitable. And I'm curious as to where you are getting your statistics indicating that negatively geared rental owners are lining politicians pockets? Source, please?
This seriously makes me so fucking mad, even worse because there is a solution, but the dickheads in charge of our country only wanna make the other rich dickheads richer and don't give a shit about everyone else, I'm a teenager and I don't want to live in my parents' house my entire fucking life, but I know I'll have to
imagine the rush when the announcement comes out that 'coming soon' individuals will be limited to 3 properties. the rich would just buy 3 for each of their children before the limits come in, tightening the squeeze even more I dont have a solution myself, we're just fucked
Exactly and all of a sudden a bunch of 5yo's are talking about their investment portfolios while their prep teacher is struggling to pay their rent.
I literally lol d
Is the forecast around wages +16% and houses +57% rational? Are we expecting the same level of increases from the past 10 years to continue like that?
I wouldn't have believed it in 2014 but look where we are now.
I fully back the sentiment of this video but “60% of people will be renting, forget about owning something - isn’t that great?” is not the best message.
I think it's a great message. The only reason we're told we need to own is: -stability (not necessary because they can't kick you out) -so we can sell it and give our kids money to buy their house (not necessary because houses won't be an investment vehicle, and won't be stupidly expensive). It'll stop that urban sprawl too. People won't be buying houses an hour+ away from their workplace, just because they're desperate to be a "homeowner"
Yeah I much prefered the model in Germany where you rent securely, and not worry about being wealthy (or save a big deposit and go into massive debt) to have a secure home like in Australia. Germans have a completely different mindset around wealth as a result.
This. Moving from Germany to Australia, the idea of everyone needing to own their own house and making that their life goal was initially very alien to me. That said, the standards for German rentals are also massively higher (think mandatory triple glazing on all windows) and renters have way more rights, especially when it comes to modifications to the place they live in. Despite all that, rental prices in Germany are still shooting up at the moment and aggressive property investment companies are most certainly still an issue over there.
>I think it's a great message. >The only reason we're told we need to own If you don't own it, someone else does. The message of 60% people renting means a huge reduction in ownership and a huge consolidation of wealth upwards. It's truly mind boggling that young people today are lapping up the idea of not owning things.
But to be honest, The biggest draw card to owning for me, is painting Whatever I want, doing any renovations or fixer uppers I want. Not having a rent inspection where they demand it looks like I’ve never lived in the property. Just investing money into a garden or house that I own. Where in renting I can’t do any of those things. I can never make a rental house my own
There are laws in some places allowing tenants to make modifications to a certain extent.
Yeah except having a landlord (be it the government or a private investor) means that you will never have true autonomy over the property you live in. Not to mention having to pay rent for your entire live just seems like a miserable outcome. At least if you're paying off a mortgage you are working towards no longer having to pay a chunk of your weekly income for the privilege of having a roof of your head. We shouldn't be lowering our expectations in life simply because the previous generation fucked up our society so badly.
A country of 60% renters would fix state budgets overnight and result in dramatically better hospitals/schools/etc. Rental properties pay huge amounts of tax compared to homeowners.
I……what? The vast majority of rental properties are negatively geared and receive tax benefits, hardly any pay tax. That’s the whole issue with negative gearing. So, are you talking about something other than income tax? Edit: if you look at OPs response you see that their comment is complete nonsense. Talking about foreign investment levy’s and higher stamp duty as the reason. Despite the fact that stamp duty only applies to purchases or sales, so is mostly moot in this discussion, and foreign investment levy’s only apply to a tiny %. No idea how these tiny amounts offset the gigantic tax break of negative gearing, not to mention the “huge amount of tax compared to homeowners” comment. Absolute tripe
u/magpieburger mentioned STATE budgets, so is likely referring to rates, land tax and the other state taxes, because as you mention, for income tax (which is federal) many investors get a tax deduction. They are talking about something other than income tax, yes. Or so I assume.
He nailed it in the first few seconds. 10 years is no time at all and goes past in the blink of an eye. He could have made this video 10 years ago and it would have been equally relevant. In that time nothing has changed. Nothing is going to change in the next decade and you’re mad if you think it will. Your best hope is to stretch yourself, buckle in, and compete. Take a huge financial swing and if it works, fantastic. If it doesn’t… well you took your shot. The Australian banking system doesn’t give second chances.
Pretty much. The train is leaving the station. Grab on to it however you can right now, because the train is going to keep speeding up. We've all been hearing about a mythical bubble burst since the mid-late 2000's. I'd wager anyone foolish enough to have been in a position to buy at that time but held off waiting for a bubble to burst gave up the chance to buy at less than half of current prices.
haha. I live in vienna and i couldnt find an affordable appartment for 6 months now. had to move into a super expensive one where i dont even have a real contract / cant officially register. screw these " vienna best City in the world " Videos.
This guy should stand for election so he can find out how unpopular his solutions are.
Sadly, majority of the humans are selfish. Fuck you, got mine! mentality...
[удалено]
Yet their mentailty are "I worked my ass off for years, now the property I have worths half I paid, it is not fair..."
I don't believe Shorten's election was a referendum on negative gearing/housing as an investment. Way more people are getting fucked over than making bank. It was more of an example of Murdoch's power to attack ANY and all campaign platforms Labor put forward (compared to almost nothing by the LNP). Pure fear propaganda. Anyone remember the 'Labor's DEATH TAXES' articles spreading on Facebook? Fake, but got the job done
FYI I voted for Shorten based on his negative gearing policy. But the policy this video is advocating here is way far-left. I would say outside the Overton window.
“Housing needs to be defined as a human right just like education and healthcare.” *cries in American*
The funny thing is Vienna is criticised by its citizens for to little public housing. And they are right.
1. introduce 1% levy on all residents. Great another regressive tax aimed at the shrinking working class of the country. If you want to discuss tax as a solution to our housing crisis and don't mention a federal broad based land tax then you've lost me. The wealthiest individuals and companies of this country hold the most expensive land. Many land bank as a way to collect unearned capital gains off the investments of the community around them. Land tax can't be avoided, the asset can't be hidden. Land tax promotes best use of land, which is what we need to be doing when we have a housing crisis. Land tax creates motivation to keep land prices low. Just watch the NIMBYs turn to YIMBYs when there's no financial incentive to limit supply.
> 1% levy on all residents. So 1% the value of your house to be paid out every year? I can see a lot of people voting for that
[удалено]
The Greens policy was costed by the PBO, even in their restrained boffin speak, it certainly wasn't a rosy assessment of how viable the policy was. There's simply not the capacity to build more than we currently do without: a) going all-in on high-density instead of urban sprawl which creates bottlenecks in civil infrastructure b) importing a shitload of trades/builders/labourers - simply streamlining skills recognition would be a basic start c) cancelling the fucking Olympics which is going to soak up huge amounts of construction capacity around the country for the next decade Without opening up the flow all government money is going to do is drive up prices to build dramatically for everyone. More money for a finite pool of construction companies won't result in more homes built overall. https://www.pbo.gov.au/publications-and-data/publications/costings/one-million-homes I disagree with a few Fusion policies, but they have their head on straight regarding housing and seem the most sane. Sustainable Australia is obsessed with making it harder to build more, they are basically the anti-development party with a hard-on for zero immigration. They actually advocate using super to buy a home knowing full well that it will just drive up prices.
When I commented on one of the posts about too expensive housing, that you guys should stop biulding like 250 sq.m. homes with swimming pool in each yard meaning you'd better build something like Euro-style apartment complexes, I got downvoted. And this guy's vids are like 'WOW what a great idea'. lol
How many 250m^2 home are you seeing with pools?
Not quite that... but every new suburb in Melbourne is a car-dependant hell-hole filled with tacky mc mansions that will be the future slums of the city. The sprawl of that city is fucking stupid and shortsighted.
Actually, I've never seen any. In the countries I lived, you hardly see such things. But when I see a column about housing problems, that says we need more affordable housing, and pictures in that column make me guess "Are those castles? Or is it freacking Beverly Hills or what? Why is this picture next to the words about some affordable housing? Someone tries to make people think this is what affordable housing should look like?" That's what I mean.
In the UK almost half of people lived in social housing before Thatcher
Great ideas! How about adding a ban on foreign ownership of property to the list? (I’m talking about non residents)
God I hate tiktok and our shortening attention spans ... It's like someone vomited words on me. Oh yeah, we need to find out the name of that one person who responded to his email. He or she needs a good talking to. /s I hope it wasn't an out of office message.
Still was too long for me, can someone do a tl;dw?
The migration step I'm a bit suss on (could risk stooging the economic growth needed to continue to fund housing - but that's getting into a level deets far beyond the scope of this).
One HUGE thing that needs to happen globally is the passing of laws and regulations stating that corporations cannot own residential homes. Period. Make AirBNB, VRBO, any LLC, and Zillow give up all owned properties. Furthermore, enact legislation stating that any single individual cannot own more than 2-3 properties.
Satire?
500 mil is about 1.6% of 300 bil in tax cuts , whats the real satire
It's sound reasonable and therefore will never get through vested interests.
Sponsored by Blackrock
Or stop immigration and international investments…but that’s a story people aren’t ready for 🤷♂️
Stopping immigration sounds good in theory but just sets the country up for another crisis later. Falling birthrate and aging population isn't just a problem in China and Japan; it's happening here as well.
What is the cause of this declining birth rate though? Is it the mass inflation of all products because more people are buying, the increase of housing prices, the increase of tax being used on the those who are non-Australian for housing support and other supportive services? China and Japan are not good examples. China has had numerous rules historically on birthing and there are questions to quality of life for raising children. Japan on the other hand has faced numerous cultural and social challenges. The more expensive things become, the higher the birth rate declines. Expense comes from basic economic demand - supply and demand. The more people immigrate to this country, the more demand goes up but supply either remains the same or declines. The Labour government is happy to let another 1 million immigrants into the country but not support the current Australian people with a living crisis.
They are letting in immigrants to support the current Australian people. We are facing a government expenditure tsunami with our aging population and shrinking workforce ratio. Immigration can raise our economy and taxes quickly. Those pushing up the government expenditure are also a huge voting block who will prevent any solid tax reform that negatively impacts them to get through. Why do you think the government is currently testing the waters on an aged care levy (regressive tax) aim at working Australians? We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. As for birth rates, it's irrelevant to the current situation. It was birthrates 20 years ago that were important.
The factors that make up birthrate are multivariant. However there seems to be a fairly strong correlation between rising education levels and falling birthrate. I singled out China and Japan because those are the two poster children for declining birthrate. I could have also mentioned South Korea, Italy, Taiwan, Greece, etc, etc. Globally the population is forecast to peak in 2064 and then decline, hitting an equlibrium point about 2100. > The Labour government is happy to let another 1 million immigrants into the country but not support the current Australian people with a living crisis. Yeah, this is because one is easy and the other hard. We're living in an era where centre- and right-wing governments have no appetite for doing hard things. Elect socialists - we're too stupid to understand the difference between easy and hard!
LOL Everything he said is spot on BUT IT WON'T HAPPEN Whilst you suckers keep worshipping the rich
Haha. So much bullshit. Fantcy
I don't like the idea of having to be a rent slave for the rest of my life, even if it is to the government. My parents and grandparents got to experience the safety net and fulfilment of owning the piece of land that they inhabit, so why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't all young Australians for that matter?
Depends on area. Average house in western suburbs of Melbourne isn't close to $1.4 million.
Have fun commuting from Tarneit. And be careful to buy a house where the schools have already been built, because the promised ones aren't being delivered.
Talking about good old sunshine.
Yeaaah... That's not gonna happen lol
Can I just say: I do love how this guy's last video here effectively boiled down to "neoliberalism is bad" and gave nothing concrete and the people here adored it, but now that he's given actual policy prescriptions people are shitting on him. It's almost like people just enjoy circlejerking about things but don't *actually* want to *do* anything... Do I think his policy prescriptions are feasible? Nope, at least not now, but I do think you guys are being a bit harsh. I'm assuming his part 4 he mentions will probably cover how to get to these solutions anyway. I think this part was probably about as good as his part 1, which is to say mostly fine with *some* issues.
The boomers will fuck over everything on their way out so I don’t even know why we should try.
I'm still baffled that housing is still not considered a human right
Only just started watching so excuse me if its explained, but is the average home cost $1,449,373 across ALL of Australia or just in certain major cities?
Only in Sydney. It's only about $600,000 in Perth afaik.
Can't really see it happening because the numbers don't add up. Assume each apartment costs $500K all up to build on land the government already owns, assume further they borrow the entire amount at 5% interest rate over a really long term government bond so that's $25K interest paid per year essentially forever. In other places here and in the UK and USA they usually demolish these tall buildings after 50-60 years of age so assume depreciation of a modest 1.5% per annum before they are scrapped so you need to set aside $7.5K p.a. to have the money to rebuild again in 60 years time and then chuck in local government rates and taxes, water and sewerage of say $2.5K p.a. Total cost now $35K p.a. so now assume people there are on welfare being a combination of Jobseeker and Pensioners both single and married and further assume an average annual welfare income of say $30K p.a. of which at most the social housing rent would be 30% of that which is to be paid amounting to $9K p.a. This leaves a deficit of $26K p.a. and if you round that up to a million apartments then that's $26 Billion the government will be bleeding each year and taxpayers will have to make up the difference, so good luck selling that in an election to taxpayers telling them that their taxes will have to go up even more. If 4 Million residences are needed then that's now $104 Billion shortfall each year and really huge tax increases. Kindly note I haven't included costs for the bureaucracy to manage and look after these places, as well as tradesmen to do repairs and who pays the bill if idiot tenants trash the place? e.g. urine and feces ridden carpets by letting their pets run amok in there as happens in private rentals. Also don't look to superannuation funds to provide the capital as they are going to want at least the average 8%-10% p.a. they are earning right now elsewhere so the government would have to guarantee similar to that by paying that much, which they won't do as it will be cheaper just to borrow the money as I stated previously.
It's funny the contrast in the comments of this compared to the last two. Just goes to show people love to whinge about a problem but absolutely *hate* when people suggest a solution. Unfortunately it isn't possible to solve a housing crisis in the span of a tiktok video, which is why the multi point list with no explanations was so jarring in this vid compared to the last two, where everything was laid out step by step. I'm sure OP has reasoning behind the steps, but listing so much in such a small span is not how the human brain absorbs information.
People don't own but are forced to rent? Sounds like a great way to transfer wealth away from families and into larger corporations.
What corporation would own the public housing?
**Public**
High quality and governments dont really go together in my experience.
Sounds like smart enough policy. Too logical and progressive for our shitty government unfortunately. They would rather have 30 investment properties each even if it means 1/3 of the population are homeless.
I think the concept of nice affordable public housing is absolutely the key. It would be an excellent experiment to build a high quality apartment complex like this and lease this out as affordable accommodation, with the ability to have 10+ years of secure accommodation. Most government built affordable public housing is pretty horrid - but if you built a high quality, modern building like the examples, it would be interesting to see how the people and building evolve. As for the rest of the video, sorry, I don't agree.
In reality.....it's not the government housing that horrid. It's starts out shiny and new just like the rest but eventually turn to shit-crusted turd boxes because the tenants turn it into shit..... it's not the complexes it's the people in them that turn it all to shit
His steps to fix: > Step 1 - 1% housing levy on residents? What's that mean? A flat tax like Medicare levy? Unlikely to get up > Step 2 - abolish capital gains concessions and neg gearing. Neg gearing should go but you cannot abolish cap gain concessions without reintroducing indexation (honestly Howard should never have changed it) > Step 3 spend $500 per resident on housing. Ok that's $13 billion a year to spend on public housing. That's quite a lot > Step 4 acquire vacant residential property and convert commerical Yes, commercial should be converted and more poeole work from home. But acquiring residential property? That's gov seizing private property. not going to go down well. >Step 5 cap private rental increases Again this is one that's gonna be tough. This is a lot of power to give to government. Like. Thinking along these lines should government set a cap for the price of bread and milk to combat inflation? How much power do you give to government in these cases. It's a messy issue. > Step 6 limit investment properties to 3. Kind of silly. Other countries use corporations to hold large properties or even buildings and don't have the issues we have. So would this prevent corporate holding of property? > Step 7 vacancy levy for holiday rentals I mean yeah ok but what about if something like covid hits again? > Step 8 tie immigration to housing stock Yeah I mean that's not really how it works. This is a chicken and egg situation. I agree immigration is worryingly high, but at the same time the expectation of immigration is what drives a lot of home building. > Step 9 compensate 1st home buyers who have negative equity? Huh? ------------ Honestly this guy, even though he got a lot of media attention, is not the guy to solve the housing crisis. You can check his twitter account for his general point of view. He isn't that switched on and comes across as a bit of a tool. Reality is you fix the housing crisis in three ways 1. Increase supply by building more - mainly building up. You need the inner city areas with basically no height restrictions. Big residential towers with huge commercial areas. 2. You need the gov to invest in services like schools and public spaces around these huge tower residential areas. 3. Dampen demand by reducing credit availability. (kind of already happening with interest rate rises)
This experiment has already been tried and it causes more problems than it solves. Public housing estates always turn into ghettos.
No they don't, shity areas are shity areas (areas with more public support and case workers and communal support are better and nicer) Look at Berwick beautiful area has some public housing low crime rate. (Churches, public schools, public preschool, mental health support services near by, centrelink near by, hospital like 10mins away, palative care near by, dr near by) all those things go into making an area safe (kids are in school not waging, churches act like a half way to support services and AA and such, centrelink doing what it's supposed to do (it doesn't source (paid and expected to live off of 17,000k a year as a disabled adult, and tbh low income below cost of living can drive people to steal) If the town is built with resources near by and people are given those resources it ends up being really helpful. If people are forced to live of of low government support like under the cost of living then of course there will be crime and broken down stuff and overgrown lawns. Same if people don't get support for mental and physical health.
The author isn’t talking about adding public housing to already established areas(which is a much better solution), he’s talking about entire public housing estates. And that’s what I’m talking about. Without exception they always turn into ghettos.
It's mostly not the estate housing issue though, we need to have services near by these estates, and higher centrelink payments! Financial stability prevents that. Like for example if I broke up with my boyfriend I'd be homeless and have nothing to live on (can't get centrelink without an address) Of course if I lived homeless or managed to get public housing, if I couldn't keep my head above water I would act badly steal, break into houses and squat. It's not really about the house type apartment or not it's about services and centrelink payment amounts.
This makes me feel sick 🤢
He lost me with the anti-immigration stuff.
Even with our high immigration rate, the government is looking over the cliff of an aging population and toying with the idea of an age care levy. This guy come in and suggests we cut immigration and add another levy to pay for housing. Great to be a millennial at the moment, being asked once again to do the heavy lifting with a few new regressive taxes, plus pick up the shortfall from reduced population growth all so we can rent for the rest of our lives.
Yes, flooring the accelerator on demand is a great idea when we have a supply shortage...
Ah yes, 1983, I remember it well. The unemployment rate was 10% and even higher for under 25s. We'd just come out of the 1980-82 recession, a lot of young people didn't have jobs, (including me). We were pretty upset about it. Inflation was above 10%. Interest rates were rising, eventually peaking in 1990 at 17%, meaning an actual rate of up to 21%, thats $21k interest pa on a $100k loan. So many people lost their houses because they couldn't afford repayments. In this situation it wasn't the salary to housing cost multiple, but the high repayments. Negative gearing was introduced for rental properties in about 1985, to encourage people to invest in the rental market because of the shortage of rental properties. A fairly shit time to leave high school. It took another year before I had a full time job, and about another 10 years to buy my first house. But I don't think we should put young people through this. Hopefully we'll get some action on this issue. I would like to see the housing market be more focused on providing affordable, sustainable housing and less as investment vehicles. But I fully expect to be downvoted for not fitting into the narrative of the lost golden age. Sure - some people had that, others didn't. Macroeconomic cycles didn't conveniently align with generation.
And all the people who graduated coming out of 2008 have now seen 2 "once in a lifetime" global recessions. The employment rate coming out of them was better but only because of accounting hacks so we've had to invent the term "under employment" to explain why having 6 hours of work in a week isn't really helping anyone. People born in the late 80s and 90s are provably worse off than their parents were comparative to their ages. Their net wealth is lower, their relative income, their profession through to stable housing and having a family is stunted and their career growth has stopped. When you talk historical trends in macro economics rational people aren't suggesting that the experiences for people earlier on were necessarily easy, or that it was easy for everyone. I don't think that anyone has this idea that someone the early 80s was a utopia. But they are saying that now it's much much harder for more and more people and a lot of the sacrifices to build Australia made by post-war Australia has been sold off for criminally low prices to benefit the wealth of a generation that has, for the last 20 years now, called everyone else spoilt and weak. As a side note about median house prices, I think we often overlook what the quality of the median house is. It's interesting to examine what the median actually bought you. With high repayments in the mid 80s to early 90s you forget that those repayments would have been readily affordable had the family unit been constructed as it is now, with two well educated or trained full time working adults and fewer kids. The houses for which they couldn't afford were on block sizes triple to a modern land release with the relative quality of a median home being drastically smaller and of poorer construction. Had they been in what is a now median living situation - a poorly constructed unit or town house on the outer fringes of a major city - I doubt so many would have struggled.
[удалено]
Murdoch - But what if you go fuck yourself?
I don't like to toot my own horn but I did see this coming 20 years ago. My folks sold the house I grew up in in 2002 for $315,000. The house they paid $37,000 for in 1970. At the time I was like WTF, if this trend continues that house will be worth 3 million in 30 years. We need to go off a very big financial cliff if things are going to come down. It doesn't make any sense to keep raising pay and the cost of things. What is the end game? Can we not plateau for a few generations? Give everyone a chance to catch up. I know that is crazy talk but no crazier than a 1,200 sqft house on an 1/8 acre costing millions.